In
her discussion of performance art, particularly that of Jim Dine, Stiles often
refers to concepts such as “interstitial continuum” and “commissure.” The
former term indicates an ongoing dialogue between subjects; further still, the
performance artist intends to blur the lines of distinction between subjects, including those that
make up the distinction between the permanent self and temporaneous work. For
Dine, by more readily integrating self into the performative action (in The Smiling Workman), it allows the
artist to “externalize his internal urgency in delirious, visual movement. …
Paint and picture conjoined with Dine’s body as a continuum of surfaces and
receptacles.” (Stiles, 78)
One could
understandably ascribe this mode of expression as similar to that of Carolee
Schneeman in her Interior Scroll (though
their subjective purposes differ entirely). Compare the previous quotation with
that in Jones (3) – “Schneeman integrated the occluded interior of the female body (with the vagina as ‘a translucent
chamber’) with its mobile, and
apparently eminently readable (obviously ‘female’) exterior (Jones’ emphasis).”
Here, the “interstitial continuum” operates on a level where the artist may initiate
a personal dialogue between his/her psyche and/or body, and the performative
action. And simultaneously, those who witness the spectacle are either
willingly or more forcibly pulled into this state of “intersubjectivity,” where
they might recognize an interconnectedness within themselves, a common thread
that ties the self to the act. Stiles defines this concept of
interconnectedness as “commissure,” its very purpose as a connector. “Through
its emphasis on exchange, performance offers a model for a transpersonal
aesthetics of interconnectivity.” (83)
There’s a detail of
Dine’s Smiling Workman that I
personally found intriguing and wanted to expand on: Dine’s preparation of the
canvas, with particular focus on the handprints, leading up to the actual performative
act. In Stiles’ formal description of the act, she provides some details of the
set-up: “In [the stage flat’s] central panel he had earlier painted a
raw-edged, gestural semicircular white form, as if priming a canvas using broad
expressive brush strokes. Dine—who is left-handed—had also earlier dipped his
left hand into the white paint and applied multiple prints of it to both the
right and left sides of this painted white surface.” (77)
I believe that Stiles
is accurate in deciphering the use of handprints as a metaphoric “parenthetical
enclosure” or frame, which would encapsulate, control, and therefore, emphasize
the act to take place within. I also find special significance to the resonance
that the lingering presence of the handprints has on the act itself – for the
artist’s intention to apply them beforehand.
Had the artist chosen to apply these handprints during the performance, the prominent sense of temporality, or the
significance of memory, would not have been as recognizably infused into the
work.
I compare this to surviving
cave paintings. In those discovered, the scientific process of dating groups of
paintings has revealed that there can be a significant variance in the time in
which they were done; at times, they even fall into separation of thousands of
years. One can get the uncanny sense that s/he is part of a dialogue, a kind of
interconnectivity between the present and prehistory. In both the experience of
witnessing Dine’s performance and that of viewing cave paintings, the viewer
can be drawn into an engaging stance, to expand her/his consciousness of this
interconnectivity. Yet, in the case of The
Smiling Workman, Dine offers himself up as a living “commissure;” the frantic energy involved in his performance
heighten the potency of that interconnectivity. (83)
No comments:
Post a Comment